How does it sit with you win people rate Tunney high at heavy???

I dont think i can agree with this.
Bowes best is holyfield.
Holyfield (when broken down a cruiserweight, who was very good but could never really consistently win against the best Heavys. He was bested by Bowe, Lewis, and split a series with Moorer before losing to some very poor competion (admittedly he was old by this time). Bowe had a life and death close struggle with Holyfield and could have easily lost. Tunney in contrast dominated and outclassed his heavyweight opponents. Especially Dempsey who may not have been the old Dempsey but did have a win against the third best fighter in the world, at the time, in between the Tunney losses. And Tunney didnt just beat him, he thrashed him, losing just one round out of 20. At the very worst, Dempsey (Tunney version) and Holyfield (Bowe) version would blast each other out and have a close fight. Personally, i cant see the version of Holy that stood and traded with Bowe, doing the same successfully against Dempsey.

Norton (Ali twice). Ali and Dempsey were both ATG fighters Ali's three year break was more of a harmful break to his skills than Dempseys (both eroded but Dempsey Ali Lost his greatest attribute). Admittedly Ali fought on with good wins but Dempsey never did. NOrton had 3 life and death struggles with Ali, which were close fights (he broke Ali's jaw in one fight but still couldnt stop him) and he actually lost the series 2-1. This doesnt compare to beating Dempsey 2-0 in the manner that Tunney thrashed him. Young was a good fighter, but really were his wins any better than say Johnny Risko?

Charles (Louis, Walcott, Moore and contenders).

There is no doubt that charles has a deeper resume, because he fought at HW more often. Louis was a good win, although is it really any better than the two Dempsey wins, given that both are ATGs at the end of their careers, who could still beat top contenders and were probably one of the top 2 or 3 fighters in the world. Given that Tunney was more dominant than Charles was, and he beat Dempsey twice, not once, you have to give the edge to Tunney. The Moore wins are no more impressive than Tunneys wins over Greb. Greb did win one fight, but Tunney eventually dominated him and proved the better fighter. Walcott is a good name, probably a better heavy than any other on TUnneys list, but let us not forget that Walcott did manage to knock Charles out could. No one was capable of doing that to Tunney and if Dempsey could catch him clean and not do it, it is doubtful that Walcott would do to Tunney what he did for Charles. All in all, resumes are similar, but you have to say that Tunney would seem to have a more proven heavy chin than Ezzard, so i would give a slight edge to Tunney.

Wills

Wills was bested by Langford, until Langford got old. He had some other good black dynamite opposition but again they were old. It is easily arguable that old dempsey was good as old versions of these other greats, in fact, probably better. Wills had some great wins, definitely more than Tunney, but he never (probably not his fault) beat the world champion. Wills is largely unknown, but his wins were no more impressive (other than longevity) than the quality fighters that Tunney fought and beat.


Schmelling

The Louis that Schmelling beat may have been the best fighter anyone has ever fought and beat. But, over the course of his career, his heavy ranking dropped because he was then KOd by the same fighter. Tunney was never KOd. Admittedly his ATG fighter was older and not at the same level as Louis, but he Tunney was far more dominant than Schmelling ever was. Louis Schmelling one was a very close fought. Again longevity is in schmellings favour obviously, but he was stopped far more than Tunney. That is important.


Overall, Tunney's heavy resume and ranking is vastly underated by most. If Roy Jones Jr (when he came to heavy) had beaten John Ruiz and then immediately fought and won every round bar one against Lennox Lewis (who in between knocked out Vitali Klitchsko) and then fought say chris Byrd. Would you not rank himvery highly as a heavyweight.

 

That slided Dempsey at the very worst have a close fight with a prime Holyfield?

I think that's a bit of a reach. I think a Holyfield would handle a peak Dempsey like he did Tyson, he thrash the old version that Tunney dominated and Sharkey gave a hiding until the low blow Combo.

Wills' resume is a million times more impressive than Tunney's.
Harry was the #1 (outside of Dempsey who ducked him) for more than 7 years, Tunney was on top at best 2 years and didn't meet Sharkey, Godfrey or other and fought in one of the weakest periods of hw boxing with little competition.

 

I dont see how the faded Dempsey was any worse than the Tyson that Holy beat. How many decent wins did Tyson have after the Holyfield fights? Certainly none that compared with Dempsey's Sharkey victory.Comparing prime Dempsey to the Old Tyson that holy beat is a very long stretch. Holyfield might have knocked out old Tyson, but it was a close fight the first time around, until Tyson wore out. Dempsey was tougher and a better technical boxer. I guess the real question is how much Holyfield had lost between Bowe I and Tyson 1. During his career Holy fought some good fighters, and his huge heart often gave him the edge, but really, is there anyone that he thoroughly dominated the way Tunney dominated Dempsey. Holyfield fought and beat Old George but surely you agree that Old George was more gone than Old Dempsey. And even that, while a comfortable win, was not a 10-0 domination like Tunneys wins were.

Old Holmes gave prime Holyfield a decent fight, that he admittedly won. That is the closest that Holyfield fought to Tunneys style. Tunney though would have been an awful lot quicker and more elusive than Old Holmes. I dont see how Holy could hope for or argue that Tunney would not turn the fight into a close contest.

 

d

 

What 10-0 wins? Tunney was knocked down for 14 seonds in the 2nd fight?

 

You just think something else.

 

He handled a far rusted way past his prime tyson, big deal

 

Yes, he destroyed an excellent Golota. Only Lewis had done it at that time and it would take 6 years more after him arguably beating two beltholders in Ruiz and Byrd before Brewster repeated it. He also knocked out Botha, Nielsen, Savarese and a few others, outside of Nielsen all in devastating fashion. Film clearly shows that Tyson was extremely fast and powerful against Frank Bruno, months before Holyfield.

Mind you, Holyfield was 34 and considered washed up when he beat Tyson. What did Tunney and Dempsey do when they were 34?

Really? Weinert, Gorman, a fat Heeney, Risko, Walker (a middleweight!) and Levinsky were also too much to get by for Sharkey. If you add to that how controversial Dempsey's win was and that he was stunned and behind on the cards, it is not impressive at all.

I'm not saying Holyfield would fight like Tunney. He wouldn't run. He would smother Dempsey, cover up, hold, counterpunch, headbutt and come on late just like he did against Tyson.

 

Holyfield himself was 34 and considered washed up and a 22-1 underdog. Tyson looked as fast and devastating as he ever did when he destroyed Bruno in 3 rounds. But yeah, big deal. Anyone could've beaten Tyson when only 99,99% of the people thought he was invincible. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it.

 

I don't rate Tunney high at heavyweight. In all seriousness, guys like Byrd and Ruiz that we joke about today have deeper, better resumes at heavyweight than Tunney does.

I don't buy into the "never stopped, dropped once" mentality, either. It looks great for his LHW resume because it's actually lengthy, but Tunney had eight fights at heavyweight (excluding the last Greb fight because Greb weighed in as a supermiddle). Oliver McCall has never been down in 62 fights against better competition and much bigger punchers than Tunney faced. He's only been TKO'd once, when he stopped punching and walked around the ring in Lewis II.

Nobody's calling him an ATG.